60 



ROYAL COMMISSION ON AGRICULTURE. 



21 Ortnbrr, 1919.] 



MR. K. M. NUMNBLKY. 





like freedom as between yourself and a man to engage 

 him for longer hours, as the case may rre|iiiie itP I 

 do not like the fixing of hours at all. 



15,154. Rut if there is to be a minimum \van< 

 appreciate, of course, the practical difficulty of a 

 wage being fixed unless there is a certain nunr 

 hours to be worked to earn that wager* Yes, I see 

 the difficulty, but ut the same time I do not think 

 the present fixing by the Wages Board is legal accord- 

 ing to the Corn Production Act. Still, that is not 

 my business. 



15,156. What I understand you strongly object to 

 is this. You have read the Hours of Employment 

 No. '2 Bill, of course? No, I have not, but I have 

 seen extracts from it. 



15.156. Mr. Smith put it to you that you are uwaie- 

 the farm labourers are not included? They are not; 

 but I understand there is a very strong effort being 

 made to get them included. 



15.157. You understand that the labourers' 

 organisations are making a strong effort to get agri- 

 cultural labourers included in that statutory we-ek !- 

 So I am told. 



15,15$. You are aware, if that should happen, that 

 the statutory week laid down in the Bill would he 

 48 hours, and neither the employer nor the men have) 

 any power to break it or make any arrangement 

 cither wise than for those 48 hours? So I understand. 



15.159. In other words, if you wanted a man to 

 work two hours longer, you would have to arrange 

 previously and get a licence for him to do so? I 

 suppose so. T have not read the Bill, but I under- 

 stood it was something of that sort. 



15.160. As I understand it, a farm labourer will 

 not be free to contract for more than 48 hours if farm 

 labourers are included in the Act. With regard *o 

 transport, you of course appreciate that a great deal 

 of improvement might be made to benefit the farmer 

 with regard to it? Yes, especially as to rates, I 

 think. 



15.161. Are you aware that a Committee is, I 

 think, sitting at the present moment to consider tho 

 question of increasing those rates? Yes, increasing 

 rates generally. 



15.162. Which will include agricultural produce? 

 I suppose so. 



15.163. So it does not look as if the farmer li i- 

 much hope in that direction? No; but what I feel 

 most about the railway rates is this. I am not sure 

 it applies quite so much now, but some years ago I 

 was asked by our Chamber of Agriculture to make 

 some enquiries about it, and I found in very many 

 cases foreign produce was being carried much more 

 cheaply than English, and I have heard of that bein.". 

 altered now. That is the great thing I object to. 



15.164. You object to that, and want it put on tin 

 same basis as farmers' produce?- Ye*. Kor my own 

 part most of my wheat goes into the Black Country. 

 and foreign wheat was brought 120 miles from tin- 

 port to Wolvcrhampton and charged only the same 

 price as mine, which was carried 50 miles. 



15.165. With regard to tho question of rating, do 

 you agree that the main roads ought to be a National 

 charge? Yes. 



15.166. Do you agree that Kducation ought to he- 

 rn National charge? Yes. hut I do not want that 

 taken entirely out of the hands of the locality 

 cither of them. I do not quit- lea how to give tin- 

 locality charge of those things unless they also pay 

 something towards the cost. 



15.167. Do you agree that the land is unfairly 

 rated at the present timer- Y.--. I take it that 

 tho farmers', and if you like to include it. tin- land 

 owner*' income, is much more highly tnxed for local 

 taxation than other |N-oplo's income derived from 



other scources, and I cannot see why. I have gone 



u deal into this, and I find that a farmer with an 

 income of 1,000 a year on Id. rate would have to 

 pay between IC'i and 6, the manufaeturer with the 

 same income at a Id. rate Mould probably havi- to 

 pay between 1 and L'2. and a professional man with 

 Ll.ihKi a year at a Id. rate would probably pay 

 li.twi.ii 7s. and 8. Now. is that fair? That is 

 what I olijeet to more strongly than anything else. I 

 have had the rate- book for Wellingborough, and I 

 have gone into it pretty carefully, and I think you 

 will find that is the case. 



15.168. Do you think rating would be more equit- 

 able if it were based on actual profits than on the 

 area of laud or buildings occupied: I think it 

 should be done on actual income. lien-vei that 

 income was derived. 



15.169. Then these professional men who run great 

 motor cars and cut up the roads, would bear a fairer 

 proportion of the cost of upkeep than they do 

 at tin- present time? 1 think MI. Both with regard 

 to local as well as Imperial taxation, c-veiy man 

 ought to pay as far as possible in proportion* to his 

 income. 



15.170. Do you agree- with me that the farmer 

 and the- manufacturer who has to devoir must of his 

 capital to running his business to obtain a definite' 

 profit, is more heavily rated than the professional 

 man who employs little- or no capita! at all? In- 

 finitely heavier; and tin farmer much he-itvier than 

 the manufacturer. 



15,170A. .1/r. I'rofser Jones: Do I understand you to 

 .say that whether a guarantee is given or not your 

 intention is to revert to grass farming!'- Kor the- 

 land lying furthest away from home most awkwardly 

 situated for working, I cannot conceive any guaran- 

 tee being given, which would induce me to keep it 

 on as arable land. I do not say it could not be done. 



1-V171. That is owing to remote -m ': and 



the- e-xtra cost, and naturally it is the poon-st land. 

 You nearly always find the poorest land furthest 

 away from the church: the nc-arer the- village the 

 better the land. 



15.172. You have now 436$ acres under the plough. 

 Is it your intention to break up land nearer home 

 in order to maintain that acreage? No, certainly 

 not. 



15.173. So that you are- n-\e-rting to grass more 

 than you used to? Yen, more than it eve-r has been. 

 Of course I have broken up Mime the -last few years. 

 The whole of that will go down, and mure be- 



I."i.l7l. And you will pay more attention to stock 

 breeding? Yes. 



15.175. Your faith in stock breeding is not on the 

 -I have more faith in that tlran I have in 



corn growing. 



15.176. From that, do I deduce that you have been 

 able to do hotter in previous ears from stork breed- 

 ing ?-- Yes. I have never attempted to divide' the 

 profits; hut my impression is 'hat I him- certainly 

 got more from stock than from corn. 



!."..! 77. l/ooking at your schedule-. Schedule- B. para- 

 graph (1), I find that you have 14 horses and 2 horse- 

 men? Yes. 



16,178. Is that not a small number of horsemen 

 for 14 horses? No, it is rather lirge in our part. If 

 I ex>uld keep those horses all together, it would be 

 certainly largo; but I have them divided, and have 

 one- liorse-keepe'i- at each. We do not go on the- 



i' which pre-vnils in some part-, and of which 

 Mr. Overman knows, of having n man to every 2 



I, nnd each man sees to his own horhct* and 

 works them. We have one head horseke<-p<>r who is 

 responsible, for soejng that the horses are fit, and the 

 men go with them" to work if necessary. 



1.VI79. He is looking nfte-r the 14? There- are 

 about (i or - in two different sets of buildings, and 

 there is one man in each place. Kvi>n when t-b< y were 

 nil kept together, as they were up to 1916, I alwav.t 

 had two horee.W.pers, a* we call them. 



